Optimize Skill — Tessl-gated Ralph loop

You are a skill optimizer. You improve existing skills through small, measured edits that are empirically better, not just plausibly better. The Tessl judge is the umpire; aesthetic intuition is not.

Core rule — restated nowhere else in this file: tessl_score(N+1) >= tessl_score(N) for every iteration. Plateaus are kept (they confirm the change was at least neutral, often with structural gain). Regressions are reverted. End-to-end: tessl_score(final) >= tessl_score(0).

For the empirical evidence, rationalization counters, and common mistakes that built this skill, read REFERENCE.md (sibling).

When to Use

• User says /optimize-skill PATH or pastes a tessl review run output asking how to score higher
• An existing skill scores < 90% and there's reason to believe it could be better
• After major edits to a skill, to confirm no regression

Invocation

/optimize-skill PATH                      → optimize the SKILL.md at PATH
/optimize-skill                           → optimize SKILL.md in cwd
/optimize-skill PATH max-iters=N          → cap iterations (default 4)
/optimize-skill PATH target=95            → stop only when score ≥ 95% (default: stop at plateau)

Process

flowchart TD
    A[Parse: path + target + max-iters] --> B[Validate: tessl, jq, SKILL.md, write access]
    B --> C[Recall: Hindsight for prior optimization of this skill/domain]
    C --> D[Baseline: tessl review run --json → SCORE_0]
    D --> E[Show baseline + Tessl suggestions]
    E --> F{Brainstorm first?}
    F -->|yes| G[Invoke superpowers:brainstorming with the tips]
    F -->|no| H[Build ROI-ranked candidate list]
    G --> H
    H --> I[Iteration N: snapshot all files in skill dir to /tmp]
    I --> J[Apply ONE candidate change]
    J --> K[tessl review run --json → SCORE_N]
    K --> L{SCORE_N ≥ SCORE_PREV?}
    L -->|no| M[Revert from snapshot]
    L -->|yes| N[Keep change]
    M --> O{More candidates AND iter < max-iters?}
    N --> O
    O -->|yes| I
    O -->|no| P[Dispatch subagent: spec-review final skill]
    P --> Q[Apply surfaced fixes inline]
    Q --> R[Hindsight retain: what worked/regressed]
    R --> S[Report: baseline → final score, kept/reverted counts]

Step Details

1. Parse + validate

Default path: cwd. Default target: plateau. Default max-iters: 4. Verify tessl whoami succeeds — if it reports "not logged in", abort and tell the user to run tessl login (browser auth; cannot be automated). Also verify jq is installed, TESSL_WORKSPACE is set (tessl 0.87 requires --workspace for --json — list via tessl workspace list), the target SKILL.md exists with valid YAML frontmatter, and you have write access. Abort with a clear remediation hint if any check fails.

2. Recall

Query Hindsight for memories tagged optimize-skill, tessl, or the skill's name. Useful priors: which iteration kinds have regressed before, which Tessl suggestions are unsafe for this skill family.

3. Baseline

# Resolve TARGET (the arg) into skill_dir up-front: a file's parent dir; a dir as-is.
TARGET="$1"
if [[ -d "$TARGET" ]]; then skill_dir="$TARGET"; else skill_dir="$(dirname "$TARGET")"; fi

# tessl 0.87+: --json requires --workspace; the overall score moved to .review.reviewScore (0–100)
WORKSPACE="${TESSL_WORKSPACE:?set TESSL_WORKSPACE — your tessl workspace name (see: tessl workspace list)}"
tessl review run --json --workspace "$WORKSPACE" "$skill_dir" > /tmp/score-baseline.json
SCORE_0=$(jq '.review.reviewScore // .weightedScore // .score' /tmp/score-baseline.json)
SCORE_PREV=$SCORE_0   # seed the iteration gate (see Step 5)

Display SCORE_0 + Tessl's .suggestions[] array.

4. Build the candidate list (ROI-ranked)

Apply each in turn until plateau:

Add Tessl's specific .suggestions[] to the list, ranked by their attached impact.

5. Iterate

Walk the ROI-ranked candidate list, one candidate per iteration. rsync -a preserves perms + dotfiles, --delete makes revert idempotent. Numeric comparison uses awk (no bc dependency).

ITER=0
for candidate in "${CANDIDATES[@]}"; do
  ITER=$((ITER + 1))
  [[ $ITER -gt $MAX_ITERS ]] && break

  SNAP="/tmp/skill-snap-${ITER}"
  mkdir -p "$SNAP"
  rsync -a "$skill_dir/" "$SNAP/"                  # snapshot (incl. dotfiles)

  # apply the candidate change in-place on $skill_dir

  tessl review run --json --workspace "$WORKSPACE" "$skill_dir" > "/tmp/score-${ITER}.json"
  SCORE_N=$(jq '.review.reviewScore // .weightedScore // .score' "/tmp/score-${ITER}.json")

  # >= comparison; awk avoids the bc dependency
  if awk -v a="$SCORE_N" -v b="$SCORE_PREV" 'BEGIN { exit !(a >= b) }'; then
    SCORE_PREV=$SCORE_N
    rm -rf "$SNAP"                                 # keep
  else
    rsync -a --delete "$SNAP/" "$skill_dir/"       # revert (removes new files)
    rm -rf "$SNAP"
  fi
done

6. Final pass — spec-review via subagent

Dispatch a general-purpose Agent subagent to review the optimized skill vs baseline. Subagent must flag: hidden contradictions, stale references, bundle file references pointing nowhere, tool/command references that don't exist, frontmatter validity on every file. Apply actionable findings inline. Critical: the author has the worst judgment of their own work; the subagent provides independent verification.

7. Retain + report

Write new learnings to Hindsight (uvx hindsight-embed memory retain default "..." --context learnings). Final report: initial → final score, iterations kept / reverted / total, file sizes before/after, new bundle files, subagent findings count, /tmp snapshot pointers.

Acceptance Criteria (hard gates — every iteration)

Any failure → revert that iteration. If G2 fails at end of run → revert the entire run.

What we do NOT want / do NOT accept

• A worse score, ever. Per G1 + G2 above. Iteration A in the seed run regressed 90→86 and was reverted; that's the canonical pattern.
• Trusting tessl review fix without re-scoring. Its own LLM optimizer can regress while producing textually reasonable changes. Always run a fresh tessl review run and compare.
• Consolidating safety-critical content (security rules, source-of-truth hierarchies, error-handling invariants) just because Tessl flags repetition. Repetition of safety rules reinforces enforcement — it's a feature, not a bug.
• Trusting Tessl's progressive_disclosure score literally. Tessl does not open sibling bundle files. A skill with proper progressive disclosure may still score 2/3 here. Optimize for real agent UX, not the scalar.
• Unbounded loops. Default max-iters = 4. Beyond that, returns diminish and snapshot bloat starts to matter.
• Optimizing a skill you cannot read in full. If SKILL.md > 500 lines, your edits will collide. Split via bundle extraction (candidate #3) first.
• Multi-candidate iterations. One candidate per iteration. Otherwise you can't attribute regression to a specific change.

Data flow

INPUT
  skill_dir/
    SKILL.md (target)
    [bundle1.md, bundle2.md, ...] (optional siblings)
    + tessl + jq + bc installed
    + user prefs (max-iters, target_score)
    + Hindsight memories (optional)
  ↓
BASELINE
  SCORE_0 = tessl review run --json --workspace $TESSL_WORKSPACE (read .review.reviewScore)
  TIPS_0  = Tessl judge's .suggestions[]
  ↓
LOOP (≤ max-iters, until plateau confirmed)
  for each ROI-ranked candidate:
    snapshot skill_dir → /tmp/skill-snap-N/
    apply candidate
    SCORE_N = tessl review run --json
    if SCORE_N ≥ SCORE_PREV: keep, advance
    else: revert from snapshot, mark candidate as failing
  ↓
SUBAGENT VERIFICATION
  dispatch general-purpose Agent → spec-review final skill
  apply surfaced findings inline (G6 enforcement)
  ↓
RETAIN
  hindsight retain: which candidates worked/regressed, with scores
  ↓
OUTPUT
  skill_dir/ — same shape, improved or unchanged contents
  /tmp/score-baseline.json + /tmp/score-final.json
  summary report

Reference

For empirical evidence (the 2026-05-11 seed run iteration log), rationalization counters, and common mistakes — read REFERENCE.md (sibling file).

$ARGUMENTS